On Jul 29, 10:05 pm, Paul Weaver wrote:
Careless? Dangerous more like. A PSV driver that doesn't know the
height of his own vehicle, (ignoring the face she doesn't know the
correct route?)

She? Was it a woman? Would explain a lot

B2003

On Jul 29, 8:20 pm, "Batman55" wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message

...

gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

So - you reinforce the window pillars upstairs. A LOT. They're going to
have to transmit the forces backwards, else they'll just bend again, so

Probably a better idea would be reinforce the pillars so they bend but
don't snap but make the place where they join the roof fairly weak so
the roof effectively slides off over the top of them. The roof being
shoved back dissappates the energy but the reinforced pillars stop it
squashing the passengers.

No, it'd just be uncontrolled then.

Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline pilots
"Pull up, Pull up"!

That seems like a good idea to me. Just have some bleeper which gets
more and more urgent and if the computer thinks the bus is going to
strike the bridge then it slams on the breaks. The technology exists
to do it.

B2003

In message
, at
01:36:45 on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, remarked:
Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the
computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams on
the breaks. The technology exists to do it.

"just" Hmm... Given that many bridges have very little clearance under
them, how will this device tell from sufficiently far away whether the
bridge is six inches too low, or six inches higher than required?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
,
at 01:36:45 on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, remarked:
Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the
computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams
on the breaks. The technology exists to do it.

"just" Hmm... Given that many bridges have very little clearance under
them, how will this device tell from sufficiently far away whether the
bridge is six inches too low, or six inches higher than required?

Because it has a GPS and a gazetteer of low bridges?

In message , at 11:05:15 on Wed,
30 Jul 2008, John Rowland
remarked:
Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the
computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams
on the breaks. The technology exists to do it.

"just" Hmm... Given that many bridges have very little clearance under
them, how will this device tell from sufficiently far away whether the
bridge is six inches too low, or six inches higher than required?

Because it has a GPS and a gazetteer of low bridges?

Why over-complicate it? Just have a GPS that shows routes *without* low
bridges, that are recommended for use by buses. Then you can avoid other
nasties as well.

And otherwise it's not failsafe (maybe there's a low bridge somewhere
that didn't make it into the gazetteer).
--
Roland Perry

On Jul 30, 11:27�am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:05:15 on Wed,
30 Jul 2008, John Rowland
remarked:

Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the
computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams
on the breaks. The technology exists to do it.

"just" Hmm... Given that many bridges have very little clearance under
them, how will this device tell from sufficiently far away whether the
bridge is six inches too low, or six inches higher than required?

Because it has a GPS and a gazetteer of low bridges?

Why over-complicate it? Just have a GPS that shows routes *without* low
bridges, that are recommended for use by buses. Then you can avoid other
nasties as well.

And otherwise it's not failsafe (maybe there's a low bridge somewhere
that didn't make it into the gazetteer).
--
Roland Perry

I know this sentiment has been expressed more eloquently before, but
why is it so impossible for these drivers just to do what they are
paid to do, i.e. drive a bus on the correct route without either
damaging it or injuring its passengers?

All these electronic devices - even the intrusive ones "announcing"
each and every stop. Why are they necessary? On the rare occasion a
passenger need to be told of a particular alighting point, why can't
they tell the driver and he then announces it over the NEVER-USED P.A.
system? I have even travelled on a bus several minutes off route,
when a bus was terminated short of his destination - even then he
failed to use the P.A. system, and did not even check to see whether
anyone (me) was still on the top deck!

I travelled on a route 28 earlier this week, where the volume of the
automatic announcement was so loud it gave me earache. Yesterday, I
travelled on one where the system had either been vandalised or broken
down - the L.C.D. screen showed the same stop for the entire journey -
pure silent bliss!

Marc.

Adrian wrote in
:

Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline
pilots "Pull up, Pull up"!

Many years ago, there was a low bridge outside my father's office. Near
it was a roundabout served by single and double decker buses, which came
from the same garage and shared a pool of drivers. Regularly, a
daydreaming driver would set off along the wrong road and either hit the
bridge or have to do a 3-point turn in the busy road.

After a while, the council installed a device with a light beam and
sensor, so that when an overheight vehicle passed, it flashed a large
sign saying something like TOO HIGH - STOP, and sounded a siren. The
staff in Dad's office would hear the siren, rush to the window, usually
in time to see the bus hit the bridge.

In those days the council owned the buses and the road, but not the
(railway) bridge. As the accidents were still happening, they decided
to lower the road, which would also allow them to run double-deckers on
that route. This turned out to be difficult job, as there was a sewer
just under the road surface and other services that had to be moved, and
they had to close the road and send the traffic round a long diversion
for many months.

Eventually they reopened the road and at last double deckers could
proceed along it unhindered. Three months later, BR closed the line and
removed the bridge.

Peter

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com

On Jul 30, 3:32�pm, Peter Campbell Smith wrote:
Adrian wrote :

Perhaps the driver should have a radar warning device like airline
pilots "Pull up, Pull up"!

Many years ago, there was a low bridge outside my father's office. �Near
it was a roundabout served by single and double decker buses, which came
from the same garage and shared a pool of drivers. �Regularly, a
daydreaming driver would set off along the wrong road and either hit the
bridge or have to do a 3-point turn in the busy road.

After a while, the council installed a device with a light beam and
sensor, so that when an overheight vehicle passed, it flashed a large
sign saying something like TOO HIGH - STOP, and sounded a siren. �The
staff in Dad's office would hear the siren, rush to the window, usually
in time to see the bus hit the bridge.

In those days the council owned the buses and the road, but not the
(railway) bridge. �As the accidents were still happening, they decided
to lower the road, which would also allow them to run double-deckers on
that route. �This turned out to be difficult job, as there was a sewer
just under the road surface and other services that had to be moved, and
they had to close the road and send the traffic round a long diversion
for many months.

Eventually they reopened the road and at last double deckers could
proceed along it unhindered. �Three months later, BR closed the line and
removed the bridge.

Peter

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com

Nice tale, Peter - made my day!

Marc.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:05:15 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
,
at 01:36:45 on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, remarked:
Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the
computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams
on the breaks. The technology exists to do it.

"just" Hmm... Given that many bridges have very little clearance under
them, how will this device tell from sufficiently far away whether the
bridge is six inches too low, or six inches higher than required?

Because it has a GPS and a gazetteer of low bridges?

iBus does *exactly* that.... So we should see an end to this sort of
thing in London.

Richard.

In uk.transport.london message , Wed, 30
Jul 2008 10:51:34, Roland Perry posted:
In message
ps.com, at 01:36:45 on Wed, 30 Jul 2008,
remarked:
Just have some bleeper which gets more and more urgent and if the
computer thinks the bus is going to strike the bridge then it slams on
the breaks. The technology exists to do it.

"just" Hmm... Given that many bridges have very little clearance under
them, how will this device tell from sufficiently far away whether the
bridge is six inches too low, or six inches higher than required?


A large bar code on each bridge, and a scanner on each bus. With a
constant angular rate of scan, the bus could also tell its distance and
speed. One could use, for safety, a non-visible wavelength of light;
and the bar code might be all-gray in the visible.

Or use a dot-matrix font of cat's-eyes on the bridge; modern OCR should
be able to read that reliably, even in the presence of some white
dielectric substance.

Or sit the driver on the top deck.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036)